Timeline for Why are commercial flights not equipped with parachutes for the passengers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 12, 2017 at 6:11 | comment | added | jwenting | @PhilPerry and the pilot would do his utmost to slow the aircraft down as much as humanly possible, and keep it level, while the crewdogs try to open the exit hatch in the bottom (which opens inwards) and jump out. Survival rate for them was estimated to be greater than nothing but not much greater, everyone involved knew that and from what I read more than a few crews decided they'd rather go down together than have some people plummet to their deaths while the rest used the ejection seats. | |
| Dec 9, 2016 at 2:21 | comment | added | Mark | United 232 might have had more survivors if it had been equipped with parachutes. The airplane was almost controllable, as evidenced by the fact that two-thirds of the passengers survived the crash-landing, so the "exiting an out-of-control aircraft" issue wouldn't be present. Still, that's the only case in the entire history of jet aviation I'm aware of where parachutes might have helped. | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 19:31 | comment | added | hsikcah | With increasing body sizes many people would not be the appropriate shape and weight for most parachutes. Even if you put a round canopy in them, a 350 pound passenger is not going to fare well under a 24' conical. What would you do for an infant? Toddler? Child? The TSO certification for a low speed parachute is not going to handle 400 kts anyway. I did a tailgate exit from a skyvan at 180mph and it was "very brisk". I would not choose to make a 250mph exit much less twice that speed! | |
| Jan 3, 2015 at 14:25 | comment | added | user5705 | Such questions are more and more actual after cases like, bbc.com/news/world-asia-30664604, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 -- are we doing enough to make flights SAFE??? | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 17:10 | comment | added | Phil Perry | Even a B-52 bomber has ejection seats for only a few lucky crewmembers. The rest have to put on a pack and get out an exit. | |
| Mar 21, 2014 at 13:20 | comment | added | Paul | @AyeshK: 12,000 feet is a standard jump altitude for several reasons: it is easily reachable by a single-engine Cessna (most common jump plane), high enough to provide 60 seconds of freefall, and not so high you need supplemental oxygen onboard or interfere (much) with commercial air traffic. The highest I have jumped is 16,000 feet - the airport looked really small and I was a bit bored on the way down. The air is noticeably thinner (and colder) up there too. High-altitude drop zones like Denver CO often stop at 9,500 feet. | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 1:35 | comment | added | David Richerby | @QuestionOverflow Please remember that this is not a discussion site. | |
| Mar 16, 2014 at 11:59 | comment | added | paul | @QuestionOverflow: Any safety system is a balance of need, cost, and success rate. Putting parachutes in passenger planes will have an insignificant success rate at a moderate cost. It's insignificant because planes crash in situations outside of do-able bail-out parameters. Lets re-ask your original question as "Why are commercial flights not equipped with ejection seats?" Martin-Baker make excellent ones, and I will pay good money to watch an entire 777 punch out. | |
| Mar 16, 2014 at 3:17 | comment | added | AKS | Out of interest, what's up with 12,000 feet ? Is there is margin of the air layers or something | |
| S Mar 15, 2014 at 13:40 | history | suggested | paul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
"above posts" no longer correct
|
| Mar 15, 2014 at 13:18 | comment | added | Question Overflow | I choose your answer because it is backed up with some facts to prove that it isn't that costly for flights to be equipped with parachutes. Without running experiments and doing probabilistic studies, how confident are we to say that the survival rate would be 0.0001% and not 1% or even 5% when such an emergency situation occurs. Do we then discount this equipment just because many people would not get a chance to use it? | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 13:03 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 15, 2014 at 13:40 | |||||
| Mar 15, 2014 at 12:23 | vote | accept | Question Overflow | ||
| Mar 14, 2014 at 13:02 | comment | added | Jae Carr | @DavidRicherby I think the point Question Overflow is getting at is that most people would prefer a .0001% chance of survival to a 0% chance of survival. Yeah, the odds are rather long, but having a parachute would at least, minutely, improve the chance of survival. ...I think the real question we ought to be asking is this: is anyone willing to spend $200 extra a flight so planes can carry the parachutes, train the staff, train the pilots, make better walkways (etc) for something that is extremely unlikely to happen. Assuming it would even be that cheap? My guess, honestly, is no. | |
| Mar 14, 2014 at 12:55 | comment | added | Paul | What he said. If the plane has suffered catastrophic failure (e.g. mid-air collision) your chances of survival IN the plane are zero. You have a moderate chance of being chopped up by the propeller (all jump planes use props). If you get away from the plane it's just another skydive. The pilot will be right behind you. Our pilots generally had zero interest in jumping, all said they would bail if the plane was uncontrollable. | |
| Mar 13, 2014 at 15:50 | comment | added | David Richerby | @QuestionOverflow If the plane is tearing up in mid air and plunging towards the ground, the preference is academic: you're going to die. | |
| Mar 13, 2014 at 12:51 | comment | added | Question Overflow | Thanks for your input. One quick question. If the airplane is tearing up in mid-air and plunging towards the ground in 1 or 2 min, would you prefer the parachute option or the seat belt option? | |
| Mar 13, 2014 at 10:33 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 13, 2014 at 13:24 | |||||
| Mar 13, 2014 at 10:13 | history | answered | Paul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |